Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic [video]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gary Cook

Active Member
I'm not sure if this has ever been shared here before, I apologize if so. A search of "noam chomsky" came up with no threads specific to this video.

Noam makes a pretty solid argument as to why the obvious use of 9/11 to further questionable national security objectives is not evidence that it was planned by the government. We as the public should be well aware by now that tragedies are often used to further political agendas, because people want action and that directly translates into votes for the most vocal. But that doesn't mean they planned the attacks, it just means that (as expected) they exploited them - and, as he explains, so did every other country in the world.


Where was it ever claimed that just because there were questionable national security practices that 9/11 was an inside job?

As far as I remember I have never seen anybody claim that solely and if they did surely that should be cited?

I could post a philosopher just making opinions that it was an inside job so I dont see why the converse is allowed?

After all it wasnt just about nationalism but also about alleged personal goals.

Also, the USA is just one nation inside the alleged "New World Order".

I am writing this from a natural perspective but this thread does seem to be very objective even from that perspective. More like promoting a biased opinion. No offence intended.

Does this thread mean we can now post random opinions from random people? - That is how it comes across. At least to me.
 
Last edited:

Henry Crun

New Member
Did you watch the video, Gary? Chomsky didn’t say the words that jvnk08 gave - that was just a summary in the OP (but a fair reflection). Nowhere in jvnk08’s words nor in Chomsky’s video that I could see does he say that "just because there were questionable national security practices that 9/11 was an inside job”.

He actually gave at least three other reasons he felt it was wasn’t an inside job:

a) Something would have leaked out: “it’s almost certain that it would have leaked it’s a very poor system and secrets are hard to keep and if it had they’d all have been in front of firing squads and that would be the end of the Republican party altogether”.

b) There was It was unpredictable “you couldn’t that the plane would have hit the World Trade Centre any hint of plan would have leaked and just destroyed them, and to take a chance on something like that ...”

c) There are coincidences in any complex event and patterns are often meaningless.

There was one other point that Chomsky made that Jackprune happily posted on https://www.metabunk.org/threads/interesting-chomsky-9-11-video.3750/ because I’d lost it, about why the Bush administration didn’t arrange 9/11. I hope it’s ok to repeat it here:

“The Bush administration desperately wanted to invade Iraq. That’s a longstanding goal, there’s good reasons for it: they have the second largest energy resources in the world, right in the middle of the world’s major energy producing region you know perfectly obvious reasons which they in fact later stated but they were obvious anyway. So they wanted to invade Iraq: one uncontroversial fact. Second uncontroversial fact: they didn’t blame 9/11 on Iraqis they blamed it on the Saudis, mainly. That’s their major ally, so they blamed it on their major ally, not on the country that they want to invade.

Third uncontroversial fact: unless they were total lunatics they would have blamed it on Iraqis if they were involved in any way. That would have given them open season on invading Iraq, total support, international support, UN resolution. No need to concoct wild stories about weapons of mass destruction and contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda which of course quickly exploded discrediting them, and no reason to invade Afghanistan which must have been a waste of time for them. But they didn’t. Well the conclusion is pretty straightforward: that they either total lunatics or they weren’t involved. And they’re not total lunatics. “

I’d be interested in your response to that one, Gary. It seems a clincher to me.


Great site by the way Mick, with ideal moderation I’d say.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Also, the USA is just one nation inside the alleged "New World Order".

Gary.....I focused on this sentence (perhaps to the detriment of the thread's intent) but, it stood out to me.

The events of 9/11 are the topic, here....and Mr. Chomsky is a brilliant man who clearly cuts to the chase, and cuts OUT the (non-existent) "legs" of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement", and any of its various iterations.

BUT, I focused on that sentence, in order to make a very specific assertion that there is NO RELATION to the (perceived) 'conspiracy theory' of the "NWO" and the events of 9/11. Simply, NONE.

I'd suggest a book to read (one of many, but this is written BY a pilot, and gives an excellent run-down of events of that day):

"Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies Of America on 9/11"

(NOTE that you DO NOT have to purchase this book from Amazon....that link is merely a reference. You might find a copy at your local library, for example).
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Gary.....I focused on this sentence (perhaps to the detriment of the thread's intent) but, it stood out to me.

The events of 9/11 are the topic, here....and Mr. Chomsky is a brilliant man who clearly cuts to the chase, and cuts OUT the (non-existent) "legs" of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement", and any of its various iterations.

BUT, I focused on that sentence, in order to make a very specific assertion that there is NO RELATION to the (perceived) 'conspiracy theory' of the "NWO" and the events of 9/11. Simply, NONE.

I'd suggest a book to read (one of many, but this is written BY a pilot, and gives an excellent run-down of events of that day):

"Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies Of America on 9/11"

(NOTE that you DO NOT have to purchase this book from Amazon....that link is merely a reference. You might find a copy at your local library, for example).

That is your opinion. Just because there is no direct primary evidence they did it doesnt mean there isnt a ton of circumstantial evidence that should be considered. Sorry for the double-negs. Just being myself.

The morals of the people involved are so questionable. In court a persons moral character is considered. I dont understand why some people are so stubborn they dont apply that to 9/11 at all, for example.

Bush, one of the peoples involved in the alleged conspiracy, LIED about WMD and that led to almost 1 million dead in Iraq. It wasn't the only reason they gave for the INVASION but it was a big part.

I know this forum is about specific evidence and not broader theories but please dont tell me they never done it. The most I would accept is some/most of the specific evidence people claim to be true is bunk. That I accept. And the debunking of such is good and useful.

You dont know anymore than I do in the sense of whether it was an inside job or not so please lets not kid ourselves we do.
 
Last edited:

Gary Cook

Active Member
Did you watch the video, Gary? Chomsky didn’t say the words that jvnk08 gave - that was just a summary in the OP (but a fair reflection). Nowhere in jvnk08’s words nor in Chomsky’s video that I could see does he say that "just because there were questionable national security practices that 9/11 was an inside job”.

I was focusing on the general point that those are alternative explanations trying to explain away conspiracy theory claims but they are not evidence. At least not direct primary evidence.

If anything it is at best circumstantial evidence which like I explained in my post above works both ways.

Not being bad but some people think Bush is a great man. How the hell anybody thinks that I will never know. Each to their own. But opinion is opinion.

Hence why I have an issue with this thread. It seems to breach forum rules on broader theories and lacks specific evidence. I wouldn't get away with that that I dont think - if I had posted somebody's opinions that promote the opposite. Ie, that 9/11 was an inside job because somebody I respect says so.
 
Last edited:

Henry Crun

New Member
I think I remembered number (3) of peoples' reactions to Chomsky and that is to ignore what he said completely and just restate the original person's opinion even though Chomsky has demolished it :) .

That one's a bit subjective and unfair though I think - I'm sure I do it as a natural function when arguing and only notice it when someone's having a go at Chomsky. Under this one, though, I sort of feel describing Chomsky as a 'philosopher' (which he's almost universally known as - a linguist and a philosopher - so this isn't a go at you) which yes he is but he's also a historian which is what we're dealing with here.

Anyway, yes of course Bush *could* have done it. I wouldn't have put it past him as a moral decision at all - I doubt many people on this site would - for example he ordered a war that killed a million Iraqis so I'm sure he wouldn't have questioned killing less than three thousand Americans if he felt it was the thing to do.

That's not the question, though, the question is *did* he do it. Chomsky for me debunks that very well, and I'd have thought that you'd certainly be allowed to post a video of a historian who debunked Chomsky's view, for example (as long as it did, of course).

So why did Bush blame it on the Saudis when all he had to do was blame it on the Iraqis to give himself a clear mandate for invasion? You didn't respond to that bit. :)
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
So why did Bush blame it on the Saudis when all he had to do was blame it on the Iraqis to give himself a clear mandate for invasion?

I will have to check my dates but my guess is that he tried to blame it on Iraq for awhile until the links were being made between the hijackers and Saudis.

Certainly the media blamed it on Al-Qaida very quickly.

Like I say, little things like that are still just theories. They dont debunk that Bush was involved for sure. Same for the the converse intentioned theories.

Bush et al are not that stupid.

I reiterate, I approve of debunking of what is proven to be false but not the broader theory based on lots of smaller circumstantial evidence which may be something or may be nothing.

None of us know for sure either way so lets not say we do.
 
Last edited:

Henry Crun

New Member
Surely it demonstrates at an absolute minimum that Bush et al didn’t themselves plan it. If they’d have planned it, then they’d have got Iraqis to do it, not Saudis. Having Saudis doing it just makes no sense.

I’ve in the past sort of thought it credible that they knew about it beforehand but did nothing. Similarly, though, thinking about what Chomsky said they’d have known that the attackers were Saudis and would have had time to produce convincing evidence that they were instead Iraqis. Why wouldn’t they? I can't see what it would need apart from a few scorched Iraqi passports dotted around the site.

I don't think it would matter whether they initially blamed it on the Iraqis as you suggested. Why would they plan to make themselves look stupid when the truth came out?

And Bush would have known the media would have been focused on him the moment he was told. He’d have wanted to demonstrate his great powers of leadership, rather than doing nothing but look dazed in a classroom for a couple of minutes reading ‘The Pet Goat’. (I’ve seen some on the web refer to that as showing it was all a black magic ritual but I think they’re probably beyond help tbh.)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
That is your opinion.

No, it is a reasoned and rational assessment of the facts, absent the HUGE amount of hysterical hyperbole that usually accompanies the "9/11" topics (much that is just repeating inaccuracies, over and over).

I've come at the topic from the perspective of a pilot....and have (attempted) to dispel the very easily noted misconceptions ABOUT the airplanes involved....misconceptions that 'fuel' (in the minds of those convinced it was some sort of Bush administration "plot") the continued beliefs.

Some people, to put it simply, over-complicate the very, very basic facts of that day, and those events.

NOW....whether the George W. Bush (aka, the "Dick Cheney") administration was incompetent and missed the signals and warnings of this impending terrorist attack? AND whether they callously mis-used the events, afterwards, to further an (already) decided-upon desire to take down Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

NOW, in my "opinion"....yes.
 
Surely it demonstrates at an absolute minimum that Bush et al didn’t themselves plan it.

let's get real, Bush Jr. is totally inept to organise something like this let alone keep quiet about it for years

also staging a huge false flag on your own land with thousands of atrocities is totally stupid as you could get the same effect on people without doing so much harm

the problem is that CIA has history of more or less successiful false flags and people simply don't believe them
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Not being bad but some people think Bush is a great man. How the hell anybody thinks that I will never know. Each to their own. But opinion is opinion.
If you check who is responsible for administering the greatest ever fiscal aid to Africa - I think you'll find it's DUBYA.

You may have misunderestimated* him. By so doing you devalue your own thinking. In war situations such a mistake can kill you. In purely abstract terms underestimation makes you miss. All of the time.

* Dubya's words - not mine.
 
Last edited:

Gary Cook

Active Member
If you check who is responsible for administering the greatest ever fiscal aid to Africa - I think you'll find it's DUBYA.

You may have misunderestimated* him. By so doing you devalue your own thinking. In war situations such a mistake can kill you. In purely abstract terms underestimation makes you miss. All of the time.

* Dubya's words - not mine.

Giving any kid of aid to places like Africa is going to support the military. That is very basic macro economics, no offense.

It allows them to use money that they were going to use on food for weapons instead.

Although in your defense I dont have evidence of how the money was spent to hand. But in principle its considered a sneaky way of supporting their military.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
No, it is a reasoned and rational assessment of the facts, absent the HUGE amount of hysterical hyperbole that usually accompanies the "9/11" topics (much that is just repeating inaccuracies, over and over).

I've come at the topic from the perspective of a pilot....and have (attempted) to dispel the very easily noted misconceptions ABOUT the airplanes involved....misconceptions that 'fuel' (in the minds of those convinced it was some sort of Bush administration "plot") the continued beliefs.

Some people, to put it simply, over-complicate the very, very basic facts of that day, and those events.

NOW....whether the George W. Bush (aka, the "Dick Cheney") administration was incompetent and missed the signals and warnings of this impending terrorist attack? AND whether they callously mis-used the events, afterwards, to further an (already) decided-upon desire to take down Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

NOW, in my "opinion"....yes.

There are facts in the other direction he/you ignore. That's why I say its just his opinion.

He looks for circumstantial evidence that supports his theory while ignoring all that doesn't.

That's not rational and balanced, even honest.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Giving any kid of aid to places like Africa is going to support the military. That is very basic macro economics, no offense. It allows them to use money that they were going to use on food for weapons instead.
Giving any aid "supports the military". Are you suggesting not to give aid?

Although in your defense
What?

I dont have evidence of how the money was spent to hand. But in principle its considered a sneaky way of supporting their military.
What "principle"? The "principle" of never helping people in need?

Live in grace.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Giving any aid "supports the military". Are you suggesting not to give aid?


What?


What "principle"? The "principle" of never helping people in need?

Live in grace.

The western countries have done so much damage there that it would be wrong not to aid them now but the west are a big cause of the problems there in the first place.

I wont go in to details as that may make the thread go too off-topic but I am sure you can imagine the kind of things I am thinking of.
 

Jason

Senior Member
The western countries have done so much damage there that it would be wrong not to aid them now but the west are a big cause of the problems there in the first place.

I wont go in to details as that may make the thread go too off-topic but I am sure you can imagine the kind of things I am thinking of.
except your missing one little detail. In that area of the world most governments don't care about the starving and sick. So it's not like they are going to give up buying guns to feed their people Anyway and that's why the UN and the rest of the world step in to help
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
except your missing one little detail. In that area of the world most governments don't care about the starving and sick. So it's not like they are going to give up buying guns to feed their people Anyway and that's why the UN and the rest of the world step in to help

I get what you are saying but aid is aid when it comes down to it. Its all politics. I am not blaming Bush per se. All politics is corrupt. It's corrupt by the very nature of it. People deciding how others should live.

But back to the thread. Its opinion and the reason I presume opinions are generally not allowed on the forum is because they just breed more opinions and then the forum will become like any other. Which none of us want.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Of course opinions are allowed. I'd just prefer threads stay focussed and on-topic.

New topics in new threads.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
If you check who is responsible for administering the greatest ever fiscal aid to Africa - I think you'll find it's DUBYA.
Did not know that. Too bad he didn't care to make THAT his legacy instead of fixating on completing Daddy's work in Iraq.
You may have misunderestimated* him. By so doing you devalue your own thinking. In war situations such a mistake can kill you. In purely abstract terms underestimation makes you miss. All of the time.

* Dubya's words - not mine.
:)
Dubya was a good one for massacring the language.

As for underestimation he's not the first POTUS to suffer thusly. Carter, Ford, and LBJ all got that tag and it stuck. Regan overcame it as did Nixon, both of whom suffered it at the time of their election. Nixon of course had other problems at the end of his time in office but his foreign policy abilities were pretty good.
IMO as a non-American who has lived during the time of all the above's time in office.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The idea that the CIA , much less the GWBush admin, would plan a false flag event in order to garner public will to invade Iraq by having group of Saudis, following the orders of another Saudi living in Afghanistan, is irrational in the extreme.
Here we have a plan to invade Iraq that will first require that Saudi Arabia is held blameless, that another country, Afghanistan, be invaded first to try and kill/capture the Saudi leader of the apparent organization that organized 9/11/01, then fail to kill/capture him, declare him no longer important enough to kill or capture( Bush actually stated he no longer cared about OBL), and , then, to trump up vastly different reasons to invade Iraq while vaguely suggesting Iraqi complicity in 9/11.

Supposedly the towers were rigged for demolition, aircraft were modified for greater speed, or remote control, or faked entirely, or missiles were used,,,,,,,
Not enough time to plan out a scenario by which the patsy hijackers ( or absolute faked, never existed hijackers) were Iraqi, not enough time to manufacture a scenario by which Hussein bankrolled them?

Instead we get WMD that cannot be made to materialize, and democratization as impetus to invade, while happening to mention 9/11 in the same breath. IIRC GWB never actually said that Iraq was responsible in any way for 9/11. He knew it would be a hard sell. Hussein was not in AlQada's good graces by a looong shot and anyone with any knowledge of the region knew that. Iraq had fought a war with fundamentalist Iran and OBL had offered to oust Hussein as a westernized, secular, dictator and failed Muslim.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
I see this all the time...but yet, when I search, most numbers are a little over half that, and many are attributed to the lawlessness in the country, not military actions.

I have seen higher figures but still. Half a million people being killed is not exactly a positive thing.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
The idea that the CIA , much less the GWBush admin, would plan a false flag event in order to garner public will to invade Iraq by having group of Saudis, following the orders of another Saudi living in Afghanistan, is irrational in the extreme.
Here we have a plan to invade Iraq that will first require that Saudi Arabia is held blameless, that another country, Afghanistan, be invaded first to try and kill/capture the Saudi leader of the apparent organization that organized 9/11/01, then fail to kill/capture him, declare him no longer important enough to kill or capture( Bush actually stated he no longer cared about OBL), and , then, to trump up vastly different reasons to invade Iraq while vaguely suggesting Iraqi complicity in 9/11.

Supposedly the towers were rigged for demolition, aircraft were modified for greater speed, or remote control, or faked entirely, or missiles were used,,,,,,,
Not enough time to plan out a scenario by which the patsy hijackers ( or absolute faked, never existed hijackers) were Iraqi, not enough time to manufacture a scenario by which Hussein bankrolled them?

Instead we get WMD that cannot be made to materialize, and democratization as impetus to invade, while happening to mention 9/11 in the same breath. IIRC GWB never actually said that Iraq was responsible in any way for 9/11. He knew it would be a hard sell. Hussein was not in AlQada's good graces by a looong shot and anyone with any knowledge of the region knew that. Iraq had fought a war with fundamentalist Iran and OBL had offered to oust Hussein as a westernized, secular, dictator and failed Muslim.


Sorry but you are mistaken about Bush it seems. He did blame Iraq. Maybe not in the media but he made the case to Tony Blair on record and Dick Cheney claimed Iraq were at least complicit for harboring a suspect directly linked.

Serious claims on top of claiming Iraq shouldn't have WMD even though America has actually used them to kill people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
It is true, Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic, and with the help of 911 truth. 911 truth has no evidence, anyone with a grade school education is equiped (if they paid attention, and gained an education) to see 911 truth is based on opinions, hearsay, and lies. Chomsky must of paid attention that fateful day in first grade when teacher covered cause and effect. 911 truth followers must of missed that day, or failed to pay attention.

All 911 conspiracies are based on nonsense, why would Chomsky miss that. 911 truth fails out of the box, I can't find any thing of substance from 911 truth, the same as Chomsky.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
jackprune Interesting Chomsky 9/11 video Escaping The Rabbit Hole 18
Mick West TFTRH #44 - Steven Hassan: Cults and Conspiracies Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Coronavis and the Food Supply: News, Rumors, Spin, and Conspiracies Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West 2018 Hurricane Season and Weather Control Conspiracies Current Events 16
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
MikeG Claim: DC officials are "flocking" to "Doomsday Camps" Conspiracy Theories 4
MikeG Resilient Cities Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Cults, Conspiracies, and Addiction - Similarities and Differences in Interaction Approaches Practical Debunking 12
MikeG Everything wrong with Hillary Clinton/Medical Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 8
MikeG Florida Zika Response a "Martial Law Exercise" Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG VA Taking Veterans' Guns Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG Explained: UN Vehicles Spotted (Again) in the US [Delivery from US Manufacturer to Overseas] Conspiracy Theories 13
MikeG Unreported Abuse of US Troops Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG FBI Spying on School Children Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG College Course on Conspiracies Practical Debunking 89
Mick West Explained: Why Clouds Appear Behind the Sun and Moon Flat Earth 58
CeruleanBlu Project scientist Eric Korpela talks about SETI, aliens, and government conspiracies. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
vooke Need debunking:Ebola conspiracies video Conspiracy Theories 10
MikeC Lorde conspiracies General Discussion 21
BlueCollarCritic Debunked Conspiracies Update - The Government Is Not Confiscating Guns General Discussion 18
Cairenn Washington Post Blog on weather conspiracies Contrails and Chemtrails 11
AluminumTheory Zimmerman Trial Conspiracies..... Conspiracy Theories 12
Cairenn Pres Kennedy on conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 0
B Backpack conspiracies Boston Marathon Bombings 1
Cairenn Debunked: Gulf of Mexico oil spill conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 22
Dan Wilson Why do people believe conspiracies? General Discussion 86
Mick West Election Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 52
Giuliano Taverna satanic cults/conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 7
Related Articles































Related Articles

Top